Allahabad High Court
Awadhesh Kumar Pandey And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 January, 2021
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 207 of 2021 Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Pandey And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yashwant Pratap Singh,Anand Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Devi Prasad and Anshu Pandey, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No.0402 of 2020, under Sections - 313, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) V of SC/ST Act, Police Station -Cantt., District - Prayagraj, during pendency of trial.
There is allegation in the first information report that the informant was having relation-ship with applicant no.1 for last 3-4 years. She is alleged that the applicant no.1 entered into forcible intercourse with the applicant and has abused her with the caste colour remarks. Applicant is not willing to marry and exploited her for a long time. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated.
From the perusal of the first information report the offences alleged under SC/ST Act are made out against applicant no.1, Awadesh Kumar Pandey,. He is not entitled to enlarged on anticipatory bail.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed, on the request of counsel for the applicants, that in case the applicant no.1,Awadesh Kumar Pandey, appears and surrenders before the court below within 90 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as per the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. Till then no coercive action shall be taken against applicant no.1,Awadesh Kumar Pandey.
However, in case, applicant no.1,Awadesh Kumar Pandey does not appears before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
It is made clear that the applicant no.1 will not be granted any further time by this court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of with regard to applicant no.1,Awadesh Kumar Pandey.
Regarding applicant no.2 and 3, Devi Prasad and Anshu Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, has submitted that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The allegations made in the first information report are against applicant no.1. The applicant nos.2 and 3 have definite apprehension that they may be arrested by the police any time.
Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
After considering the rival submissions this court finds that there is a case registered against the applicants. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend them. After the lodging of FIR the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an FIR has been lodged. The courts have repeatedly held that arrest should be the last option for the police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349 the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60 percent of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2 percent of expenditure of the jails. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental rights and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the peculiar case the arrest of an accused should be made.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and their antecedents, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail for limited period in this case considering the exceptions considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
In the event of arrest, the applicant no.2 and 3, Devi Prasad and Anshu Pandey shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned Court with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant nos.2 & 3 shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;
(ii) The applicant nos.2 & 3 shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) The applicant nos.2 & 3 shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passports, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(v) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant nos.2 & 3.
The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation, if pending, of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant nos.2 & 3.
The applicant nos.2 & 3 are directed to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, if investigation is in progress who shall ensure the compliance of present order.
Order Date :- 19.1.2021 SS